MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380033344 · doi:10.3998/circus.4455

Review of _Contemporary Circus_

2023· article· en· W4380033344 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueCircus Arts Life and Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Circus is a valuable sourcebook arranged in four distinctive sections under the topics of "Apparatus," "Politics," "Performers" and "New Work."Each section comprises a critical-theoretical introduction provided by the authors, as well as a collection of "voices."These "voices" are made up of transcribed and edited conversations the authors undertook with an impressively diverse range of circus artists, and each conversation benefits from accompanying images that richly illustrate the work discussed.In their introduction, the authors compellingly argue that scholarship on Contemporary Circus has not yet caught up with the form's popularity in the world and rightly note the continuing underrepresentation of circus within academic discussions of contemporary live performance.At the same time, they suggest that the field of critical circus studies has largely addressed the older forms of Traditional Circus and New Circus at the expense of more innovative and contemporary creative practices.This book attempts to identify and address persistent lacunae in both circus practice and circus scholarship.On the one hand, the authors argue for a more developed critical-theoretical framework in which to encounter and engage circus; on the other hand, they also advocate for the primacy of the artists' voices.Indeed, it is the circus performer who is at the heart of Contemporary Circus.While each of the four sections offers new ideas, information and points of focus, the first, "Apparatus," perhaps most pointedly challenges how we see and think about circus performance.This section interrogates the very notion of a circus apparatus, tracking back to the thinking of Michel Foucault and

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCircus Arts Life and SciencesSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207